lol tvlicensing

it seems you are right.

and apparently the bbc are responsible for 12% of all criminal prosecutions in a year - crazy really. they should classify it differently and hand out a normal fine instead.

It's worth checking that little stat out ;)


I remember seeing that number floated around before and it turned out to be ignoring pretty much every case that wasn't seen by magistrates, and even a lot of them (baring in mind that these days many minor criminal offences are dealt with by FPN's and police cautions).
So the large number suddenly dropped a lot when you realised that the people who were using that stat had deliberately ignored anything seen in the crown court, anything outside the magistrates court, and from memory a lot of cases seen by the magistrates.
It also ignores the fact that whilst TVL cases might make up a percentage of the cases seen by the magistrates, the amount of time it takes up is far far lower as (and this is complained about a lot by some who dislike the TVL), the TVL cases are often dealt with very quickly because the person either admits it straight up or doesn't bother turning up thus a default judgement is issued (I've heard it suggested the magistrates can get through 15-30 an hour - for most other offences the Magistates might be lucky to get through one or two a morning).

[edit]
And it is a normal fine they hand out - unless you want it to be a FPN, which would be unfair on a lot of people as the Magistrates can vary the level of fine depending on personal circumstances (and vary the payment time), whilst FPN's are usually as the name suggests fixed (thus someone who willfully and repeatedly refuses to comply with the law, but has plenty of cash is dealt with the same as someone who makes a mistake).
 
aardvark your right, Its been noted that a judge recently commented on the number of people being prosecuted for not having a TVL, he said it should be dealt with by the county court like other fines.
 
It's worth checking that little stat out ;)


I remember seeing that number floated around before and it turned out to be ignoring pretty much every case that wasn't seen by magistrates, and even a lot of them (baring in mind that these days many minor criminal offences are dealt with by FPN's and police cautions).
So the large number suddenly dropped a lot when you realised that the people who were using that stat had deliberately ignored anything seen in the crown court, anything outside the magistrates court, and from memory a lot of cases seen by the magistrates.
It also ignores the fact that whilst TVL cases might make up a percentage of the cases seen by the magistrates, the amount of time it takes up is far far lower as (and this is complained about a lot by some who dislike the TVL), the TVL cases are often dealt with very quickly because the person either admits it straight up or doesn't bother turning up thus a default judgement is issued (I've heard it suggested the magistrates can get through 15-30 an hour - for most other offences the Magistates might be lucky to get through one or two a morning).

[edit]
And it is a normal fine they hand out - unless you want it to be a FPN, which would be unfair on a lot of people as the Magistrates can vary the level of fine depending on personal circumstances (and vary the payment time), whilst FPN's are usually as the name suggests fixed (thus someone who willfully and repeatedly refuses to comply with the law, but has plenty of cash is dealt with the same as someone who makes a mistake).

but you also get a criminal record from it - is that right??
 
Why though? I can understand refusing to let them enter your own, it's your home.

However, if it's purely to stop a few letters and their harass tactics - I'd let them enter, show them I either have no TV, or no signal into the house and tell them to sling their hook. Everything else needs to be proven on their side - The fact you are being co-operative isn't really helping, if anything I'd imagine it would put more of a "target" on you, making you look guilty.

I don't refuse to let them enter my house because of some sentimental attachment to my it. I refuse to let them enter because of the principle of it. I don't realy care if they came in to my home at the end of the day, they would see as i told them at the door, that there is no tv. But as i understand the principles of what liberty is all about. I am compelled to not comply with that discretion.

This is half the problem or maybe even the problem, that you have just described. I find im screwed either way and I don't even own a TV. So id rather just ignore them as I don't have a tv there is nothing realy to ever be concerned about in that regard. I have had them show up with a warrant at other properties when I was sharing and my house mate let them in and that was after he had let them know we don't need a tv license.
 
This thread is still going?

Have we not already established on the first page that we should not pay for unsolicited goods and just ignore any communication from the licencing authority?
 
"Acts are statutes which require the consent of the governed, in other words they need your consent.

Seriously, I'm not asking to be spoon fed (and I appreciate that can happen here) but can you please refer me to a legit source (not a FMOL, Icke, Harris video) that documents that statutes and acts require individual consent to be given the force of law?

Your entire argument is hinged on this :)

I'm afraid that inaction from prod with TVL staff doesn't qualify, I'm after documented evidence from a recognised source.
 
Believe what you want to believe Glaucus, I said it was a search warrant that they get, I did not say they use a search order, someone else said that.

I said it, and I said it because thats the likely document they will produce.
It will quite possibly mention warrant in the description.
There is however no prescribed format for a warrant as long as it has certain key pieces of information and is duly authorised it is a valid legal document.

A search warrant and a search order are different things.

A TVL employee is no different to most bailiffs with a warrant, he will call on the police to support the execution of a warrant thats been legally drawn.

If you have a search warrant correctly addressed you have no right, at all, to reject entry. A search order is not much more than a con to try to gain access.

TVL are quite open about it:

"You have no obligation to grant entry to an enquiry officer if you don’t wish to do so. If refused entry by the occupier, the enquiry officer will leave the property. If enquiry officers are refused access or an occupant withdraws the right to visit, then TV Licensing reserve the right to use other methods of detection.
Enquiry officers may apply for authorisation to use detection equipment if they are refused entry on to premises. TV Licensing may also apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a search warrant. However, this is only done as a last resort and when a senior manager and a legal adviser considers that there is good reason to believe that an offence has been committed."

"Enquiry officers do not have a legal right of entry to a person’s home without a search warrant, and if refused entry to premises they will end the visit."

"When a person withdraws the implied right of access to TV Licensing, this is honoured. A flag is placed against the address on the TV Licensing database, which prevents any further visits being scheduled."

"TV Licensing can only enter your home without your permission if authorised to do so under a search warrant granted by a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland). A magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) has discretion to grant a search warrant for authorised persons to search premises suspected of illegal activity in respect of TV licensing. It is an offence to intentionally obstruct a person exercising the warrant (see section 366(8) of the Communications Act 2003). TV Licensing will be accompanied by the police when executing a search warrant."

"We exercise search warrants in the presence of police officers. Our policy is that Enquiry Officers will not force entry to an address if the occupier is not at the property. Rather, we would return at another time. We note however that accompanying police officers may themselves force entry if they deem it necessary."

The only point I would make that I believe is misleading is the last point. I dont agree that the enforcement officer has the right to force entry and thats why they do not. A police officer (and some bailiffs in certain situations) do have the right with a search warrant to force entry. (ie what they would do on a drugs bust, thats a search warrant)

A search warrant normally requires a constable to support the warrant, most of the time its a search order since that has not happened, the police officer is indeed asked to go along to keep the peace. When entry is refused as is likely at this point then the TVL can ask the officer to support his application for a warrant.
Have a look at this website for example :
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...h-premises/conduct-of-search-of-premises.html

Its a criminal act to attempt to prevent the execution of a valid court warrant (contempt of court)
 
Last edited:
They say you have too but I'm seriously considering jacking in the licence and just continuing to watch live tv anyways (not that I watch much to start with), I would happily block and/or delete BBC channels from my sky and free view boxes if I could.

Aye im a bit miffed as to how the fee is still to be paid for watching BT Sport when ITV/SKY lost the rights from 2014 onwards? What has BT Sport streaming over the internet got to do with the BBC or ITV or whoever gets the fee when BT now own the rights from 2014-2017. Anyways a few games is not worth £150 or so i will not be paying it and they have to prove i streamed it live. Someone just needs to do a re route of BT Sport for thier offical customers and delay the game by 7 minutes and no fee is required.


The BBC Trust gives the following information for expenditure of licence fee income during the year 2009-10 of £3.56 billion[17] (expressed here in percentage terms):

66% – All TV
17% – National and local radio
6% – Online e.g. BBC websites, iPlayer
11% – Other e.g. transmission and licence fee collection costs*


What % is even used by most people? Should it fund radio and the 11% collection costs or scrap both and lower the fee? This week i watched one stupid Hammond documentary and Citizen Kahn via Catchup. I have not watched anything live now for months so basically i would be paying the dirty buggers 100% of the fee for using a small amount of programmes over a month which is funded by only 6% of my £150 or so.
 
Last edited:
What % is even used by most people? Should it fund radio and the 11% collection costs or scrap both and lower the fee? This week i watched one stupid Hammond documentary and Citizen Kahn via Catchup. I have not watched anything live now for months so basically i would be paying the dirty buggers 100% of the fee for using a small amount of programmes over a month which is funded by only 6% of my £150 or so.

It's not 11% collection costs, it's 11% for "other" costs which include transmission and collection costs. Without a further breakdown you can't sensibly say whether it's 10% transmission costs, 0.5% collection costs and 0.5% of genuine miscellaneous or some other mixture.

It's also worth remembering that while you might see it as not just paying a licence fee to go towards things you want but also paying towards things you don't want - perhaps counter-intuitively that can be a good thing because the BBC has expertise in such a wide range of different programming and tastes that it can bring to bear on pretty much everything it does. If you don't have that guaranteed income stream (and mandate to output a wide range) then you've got to generate funding in at least one other way, this may be advertising or also a move towards what is most commercially successful - currently things like Big Brother, X-Factor and various reality TV/game shows so bluntly if paying a licence fee keeps more of that dross off the TV then I'm all for it. The BBC isn't immune to putting those sort of programmes on TV but they do provide a much wider range of programmes than most commercial channels.
 
Is it legal to charge an admission fee for your house? Say... £145.50?

If so, then I'd be perfectly happy to allow entry to any TVL inspectors who wish to come have a poke around...
 
Is it legal to charge an admission fee for your house? Say... £145.50?

If so, then I'd be perfectly happy to allow entry to any TVL inspectors who wish to come have a poke around...

Of course its legal, dont forget to account for the income in your tax return, they would probably decline to pay however ;)

And if they have a search warrant (assuming properly authorised) they would have access rights whether you are there or not, and whether they need to force access or not.
They are unlikely to do so as it would be deemed unnecessarily extreme.

I went to see company barrister this morning so posed this to him at the same time, on the TV thing.
His view, the warrant (assuming it is actually one and is correct) has to state the property address and not the householder name as well as the normal requirements for a warrant. It should be against the property as its a property search not an individual search.
His view also interestingly was that the TVL person should make you aware of your rights since their next port could be to return to court to use anything you said or did as part of the justification to take it further. That way you have two people (minimum) able to have their word taken as correct (ie the police officer and the TVL guy) which would make the magistrate basically certain of what they are saying.
 
Do you still need a TV license even though you don't own a TV and watch stuff on BBC YouTube and iPlayer?

If you're watching programmes LIVE on iPlayer then yes, you do. If you're only watching on demand material (ie. not currently being broadcast live), then no, you don't.
 
things like Big Brother, X-Factor and various reality TV/game shows so bluntly if paying a licence fee keeps more of that dross off the TV then I'm all for it. The BBC isn't immune to putting those sort of programmes on TV but they do provide a much wider range of programmes than most commercial channels.

Well said. I think the licence fee is money well spent.

Refusing entry and ignoring the letters is so childish, if you don't have a TV just send them a letter saying so.
 
Well said. I think the licence fee is money well spent.

Refusing entry and ignoring the letters is so childish, if you don't have a TV just send them a letter saying so.

Just because you find the behaviour undesirable, it doesn't mean it's childish. What is it with people now? What's with the insistence on branding all undesirable behaviour as childish? :confused:
 
Refusing entry and ignoring the letters is so childish, if you don't have a TV just send them a letter saying so.

A tv has nothing to do with it.
Its if you are watching or recording a live broadcast.
You can watch a live broadcast on a laptop and be against the law.
You can use a tv for netflix, OD services etc and not need a license.
 
Back
Top Bottom